Jun 21, 2011, 5:45 PM EST
Jeff Passan — who, unless I’m wrong, coined the phrase “unalignment” to describe the elimination of divisions several years ago — reports that while the concept of unalignment has been discussed, it’s not terribly likely. His sources tell him that the reason is simple: too crazy! Well, they didn’t say “crazy,” — the phrase “drastic change” was used — but the idea is pretty unconventional and a bit of shock to the conservative world of baseball.
His source tells him, however, the the notion of an NL team moving to the AL to balance things out 15-15 is likely, however.
I’m not yet totally invested in any realignment/unalignment plan I’ve seen — I can see pros and cons of most scenarios — but I am kind of bummed that the stated reason for not pursuing unalignment further is simply that it’s radical. Radical isn’t exactly baseball’s forte, sure, but radical doesn’t mean bad. The fact is that no matter what you tweak, you’re going to have inefficiencies in the scheduling or the competitive balance or the finances or whatever. The point should be — while the subject is on the table — to find the scenario that limits the inefficiencies, not the one that simply limits the amount of overall change.
Though, yes, I’ll grant that at some point change itself could be considered an inefficiency if it alienates fans.
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)